This will be my last response because I swear to god I feel like I’m arguing with Donald Trump.

> You’re assuming wrong.

You said:

> You don’t maximize educational potential by lying to young viewers.

Why would you say that if you did not intend that the purpose should be to educate viewers?

> That’s not what I said.

You said:

> It did neither. Lots of it didn’t make sense, and by being untruthful, it was less impactful….that’s a second mistruth, and kind of a big lie considering I’ve said the opposite.

Are you going to be so pedantic as to say, “Well I didn’t say all of it didn’t make sense and I only said less impactful”?

> That’s a common logical fallacy. Popular doesn’t mean right. Or true. Or good. It just means popular.

Okay, I said ‘acclaimed’, not any of the other adjectives you used. I might use those, but I didn’t, so I don’t know what you are arguing against. Acclaimed means publicly praised and celebrated. Chernobyl has an 82 on Metacritic, meaning ‘universal acclaim’. It has a 9.0 user score on Metacritic, meaning ‘universal acclaim’. It has a 9.4 on IMDB which is 5th highest TV show of all time. A logical fallacy is faulty reasoning in the construction of an argument. My argument was as follows: 1. Most people think the show makes sense and is impactful. 2. This is made evident by the fact it gets such acclaim, as seen in the above user scores and critic scores. Where is the fallacy in that argument?

> Universally beloved. Also false.

See above. Unless you are going to be pedantic again and say that because you don’t like it, it’s not universally beloved.

> They won’t accept any improvement.

That’s not true at all, everyone loves improvement. The disagreement lies in that the things you think are necessary, I don’t think will improve the show.

> The facts are what is aggressive.

Well, again, that’s not what I have ever argued against. I have admitted that there are deviations from the factual account in the telling of the story, and that those deviations made the show better as a narrative story. You have a subjective opinion that is opposed to that, which is fine. What I opened my initial argument with is that I just disagree, and I stated the reasons for that disagreement.

I’m tired of hitting the quote button, but you are calling lies what I am calling artistic choices because they actively made the decision to not make a documentary and instead making a drama. You are arguing things I’m not arguing, and you are lying about what you are saying as shown above. I can’t tell if you’re just an angry person when it comes to this subject, or if you just don’t know how to debate honestly.

Anyways, cheers. I bear no ill will towards you, though this was pretty unpleasant. In the spirit of the people who now live in this region, Slava Ukraini.